Whether the complainant is exempted from transfer of the case as per the judgment of Dasarth Rathod case - “145. Evidence on affidavit. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974.) the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.Crl. M.C. No.4958/2014 Page 5 of 9 (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.” = There may be three situations when notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. is served upon an accused;(i) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. the matter is fixed for DE as no application as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by the accused; (ii) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C., an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by an accused but it is yet to be allowed by a Magistrate; and (iii) After serving notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the application moved under Section 145(2) of the NI Act by an accused for cross-examination of the complainant, has been allowed by the Magistrate. whether the trial would be said to have commenced in all the aforesaid three situations or not. It is only in the third situation when the application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act has been allowed by the Magistrate that the trial would commence within the meaning of Section 145(2) of the NI Act. - Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (supra) the Apex Court observed that the category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Act or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as clarified therein, to the Court where it is presently pending. In the present case, it is not disputed that the notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner on 29.05.2014 and the petitioner was granted time to move an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act. No application under Section 145(2) of NI Act was filed by the petitioner. The request to cross-examine the complainant in terms of Section 145(2) has not been allowed by the learned trial court.Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that the complaint has reached the stage of Section 145(2) of NI Act or beyond thereof. - 2015 Delhi (2015)msklawreports

Whether the complainant is exempted from transfer of the case as per the judgment of Dasarth Rathod case - “145. Evidence on affidavit. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974.) the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.Crl. M.C. No.4958/2014 Page 5 of 9 (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.” = There may be three situations when notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. is served upon an accused;(i) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. the matter is fixed for DE as no application as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by the accused; (ii) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C., an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by an accused but it is yet to be allowed by a Magistrate; and (iii) After serving notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the application moved under Section 145(2) of the NI Act by an accused for cross-examination of the complainant, has been allowed by the Magistrate. whether the trial would be said to have commenced in all the aforesaid three situations or not. It is only in the third situation when the application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act has been allowed by the Magistrate that the trial would commence within the meaning of Section 145(2) of the NI Act. - Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (supra) the Apex Court observed that the category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Act or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as clarified therein, to the Court where it is presently pending. In the present case, it is not disputed that the notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner on 29.05.2014 and the petitioner was granted time to move an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act. No application under Section 145(2) of NI Act was filed by the petitioner. The request to cross-examine the complainant in terms of Section 145(2) has not been allowed by the learned trial court.Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that the complaint has reached the stage of Section 145(2) of NI Act or beyond thereof. - 2015 Delhi (2015)msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more